The modern synthesis and "Progress" in evolution: a view from the journal literature.

IF 1.6 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2024-11-06 DOI:10.1007/s40656-024-00634-6
Charles H Pence
{"title":"The modern synthesis and \"Progress\" in evolution: a view from the journal literature.","authors":"Charles H Pence","doi":"10.1007/s40656-024-00634-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The concept of \"progress\" in evolutionary theory and its relationship to a putative notion of \"Progress\" in a global, normatively loaded sense of \"change for the better\" have been the subject of debate since Darwin admonished himself in a marginal note to avoid using the terms 'higher' and 'lower.' While an increase in some kind of complexity in the natural world might seem self-evident, efforts to explicate this trend meet notorious philosophical difficulties. Numerous historians pin the Modern Synthesis as a pivotal moment in this history; Michael Ruse even provocatively hypothesizes that Ernst Mayr and other \"architects\" of the Synthesis worked actively to eliminate Progress from evolutionary biology's scientific purview. I evaluate these claims here with a textual analysis of the journals Evolution and Proceedings of the Royal Society B (a corpus of 27,762 documents), using a dynamic topic modeling approach to track the fate of the term 'progress' across the Modern Synthesis. The claim that this term declines in importance for evolutionary theorizing over this period can, indeed, be supported; more tentative evidence is also provided that the discussion of 'progress' is largely absent from the British context, emphasizing the role of American paleontology in the rise and fall of 'progress' in 20th-century evolutionary biology.</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-024-00634-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The concept of "progress" in evolutionary theory and its relationship to a putative notion of "Progress" in a global, normatively loaded sense of "change for the better" have been the subject of debate since Darwin admonished himself in a marginal note to avoid using the terms 'higher' and 'lower.' While an increase in some kind of complexity in the natural world might seem self-evident, efforts to explicate this trend meet notorious philosophical difficulties. Numerous historians pin the Modern Synthesis as a pivotal moment in this history; Michael Ruse even provocatively hypothesizes that Ernst Mayr and other "architects" of the Synthesis worked actively to eliminate Progress from evolutionary biology's scientific purview. I evaluate these claims here with a textual analysis of the journals Evolution and Proceedings of the Royal Society B (a corpus of 27,762 documents), using a dynamic topic modeling approach to track the fate of the term 'progress' across the Modern Synthesis. The claim that this term declines in importance for evolutionary theorizing over this period can, indeed, be supported; more tentative evidence is also provided that the discussion of 'progress' is largely absent from the British context, emphasizing the role of American paleontology in the rise and fall of 'progress' in 20th-century evolutionary biology.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
进化论中的现代综合与 "进步":从期刊文献看进化论。
自从达尔文在旁注中告诫自己要避免使用 "高级 "和 "低级 "这两个术语以来,进化论中的 "进步 "概念及其与 "进步 "这一假定概念之间的关系就一直是争论的主题。虽然自然界某种复杂性的增加似乎是不言而喻的,但解释这一趋势的努力却遇到了众所周知的哲学难题。许多历史学家将现代综合理论视为这一历史的关键时刻;迈克尔-鲁斯(Michael Ruse)甚至挑衅性地假设,恩斯特-迈尔(Ernst Mayr)和其他综合理论的 "设计师 "积极致力于将 "进步 "从进化生物学的科学范畴中剔除。在此,我通过对《进化》和《皇家学会会议录 B》期刊(共有 27762 篇文献)进行文本分析,采用动态主题建模的方法来追踪 "进步 "一词在整个现代综合中的命运,从而对这些说法进行评估。在这一时期,"进步 "一词在进化理论研究中的重要性有所下降,这一说法确实得到了支持;同时还提供了一些初步证据,表明在英国语境中基本上没有关于 "进步 "的讨论,强调了美国古生物学在 20 世纪进化生物学 "进步 "兴衰中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal committed to providing an integrative approach to understanding the life sciences. It welcomes submissions from historians, philosophers, biologists, physicians, ethicists and scholars in the social studies of science. Contributors are expected to offer broad and interdisciplinary perspectives on the development of biology, biomedicine and related fields, especially as these perspectives illuminate the foundations, development, and/or implications of scientific practices and related developments. Submissions which are collaborative and feature different disciplinary approaches are especially encouraged, as are submissions written by senior and junior scholars (including graduate students).
期刊最新文献
Matteo Vagelli, Reconsidering historical epistemology: French and anglophone styles in history and philosophy of science, 2024. Springer. Normative implications of postgenomic deterministic narratives: the case study of epigenetic harm. Seeking the first phylogenetic method-Edvard A. Vainio (1853-1929) and his troubled endeavour towards a natural lichen classification in the late nineteenth century Finland. The modern synthesis and "Progress" in evolution: a view from the journal literature. Snait B. Gissis, Lamarckism and the emergence of 'scientific' social sciences in nineteenth-century Britain and France, Springer, 2024.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1